CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H237605 LWF
Ms. Andrea L. Nappi
Park Street Imports, LLC
1000 Brickell Ave., Ste. 915
Miami, FL 33131
RE: Country of origin marking requirements of blended rum imported from France
Dear Ms. Nappi:
This is in reply to your letter, dated December 26, 2012, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), requesting a ruling concerning the country of origin of blended rum imported from France.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue consists of blended rum that is blended with water in France. Rums from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana are exported to France, where they are combined in equal parts and blended with water. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that the blended rum is subject to any other significant processing operations in France.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin for marking purposes of the blended rum.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1304), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the United States, the English name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. § 1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.” See United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940).
Part 134 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 134) implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. § 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” as “the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. Further work or material added to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the country of origin within the meaning of [the marking laws and regulations].” A substantial transformation occurs when, as a result of manufacturing process, a new and different article emerges, having a distinct name, character or use, which is different from that originally possessed by the article or material before being subjected to the manufacturing process. See Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 142, 681 F.2d 778 (1982).
The Court of International Trade’s (CIT) analysis in National Juice Products Ass’n v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986), is applicable to this case. In National Juice, the CIT upheld CBP’s decision in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 728557, dated September 4, 1985, in which we concluded that imported orange juice concentrate was not substantially transformed when it was mixed with water, essential oils, flavoring ingredients and domestic fresh juice in order to produce frozen concentrated orange juice and reconstituted orange juice. CBP found that the manufacturing process did not create an article with a new name, character or use. CBP held, and the CIT agreed, that the manufacturing process did not change the "fundamental character of the product" as "it was still essentially the juice of oranges." See also HQ 562468, dated October 4, 2002.
By contrast, CBP held in HQ 731685, dated March 15, 1990, that converting imported fruit concentrates and other imported ingredients into fruit drinks in Mexico constituted a substantial transformation. The manufacturing process involved mixing the juice concentrates with other ingredients including water, artificial flavor, sodium benzoate, and food coloring. We held that, considering the totality of the circumstances, a substantial transformation of the foreign ingredients had occurred because “[t]he juice concentrates are subsumed into a product that is no longer considered a juice.” Essentially, a substantial transformation was found because raw ingredients had been converted into a different article of commerce through a process beyond simple combining, packaging or mere diluting.
The record indicates that the processing of the instant merchandise in France involves the simple combination, in equal percentages, of rums from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago and the blending of the combined rum with water. Unlike HQ 731685, the fundamental character of the rum is not altered by the addition of water. See also HQ 732260, dated June 20, 1998 (finding that the blending of whiskeys with water did not result in the substantial transformation of the beverage). Consequently, for the purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1304, the origin of the blended rum would be the origin of the constituent rums.
In your letter, you reference communications with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“TTB”), concerning the country of origin labeling requirements for the blended rum. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 134.11, the blended rum should be marked so as to indicate the country of origin of the merchandise, for example “Product of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.” TTB country of origin labeling requirements are provided for by 27 C.F.R. §§ 5.32(b)(2) and 5.36(e). For further information on the TTB labeling requirements, you may contact the following agency:
Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1310 G Street, NW, Suite 200E
Washington, D.C. 20220
HOLDING:
Rums from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana are not substantially transformed when they are combined together and blended with water in France. For purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1304, we find that the country of origin of the blended rum is Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana.
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time the goods are entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Ieva K. O’Rourke, Chief
Tariff Classification and Marking Branch